eBPF Performance Benchmark Report
Comprehensive performance comparison of eBPF-based monitoring vs traditional APM agents. Real-world benchmarks across CPU, memory, latency, and throughput.
Key Findings
10x Lower CPU Overhead
eBPF uses 1.2% CPU vs 12-15% for traditional agents
Impact: Save $1000s/month on compute costs
15x Less Memory
187MB vs 2.8GB for Java agents
Impact: Run more services per host
Near-Zero Latency Impact
0.05ms p99 vs 12.89ms for agents
Impact: Better user experience
Scales to 100K+ req/s
Only 0.8% throughput loss at extreme load
Impact: Handle peak traffic without issues
Benchmark Results
CPU Overhead Comparison
Memory Usage
eBPF (HyperObserve)
Java Agent
Python Agent
Node.js Agent
Go Agent
Latency Impact (ms)
Percentile | eBPF (HyperObserve) | Traditional Agents | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
p50 | 0.01ms | 0.89ms | 89x slower |
p90 | 0.02ms | 2.34ms | 117x slower |
p95 | 0.03ms | 4.67ms | 156x slower |
p99 | 0.05ms | 12.89ms | 258x slower |
Throughput Degradation (%)
Test Environment
Hardware
- • CPU: Intel Xeon Platinum 8375C @ 2.90GHz (32 cores)
- • Memory: 128GB DDR4 ECC
- • Storage: NVMe SSD 2TB
- • Network: 25 Gbps
Software
- • OS: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (Kernel 5.15)
- • Container: Docker 24.0.7
- • Orchestration: Kubernetes 1.28
- • Load Testing: K6 with 1000 VUs
Workloads
- • Microservices: 50-service mesh
- • Database: PostgreSQL 15 with 1M queries/min
- • Message Queue: Kafka with 500K msg/sec
- • Cache: Redis with 2M ops/sec
Get the Full Report
Download the complete 25-page benchmark report with detailed methodology, additional test cases, and implementation recommendations.
Full Report Includes:
- ✓Complete test methodology
- ✓20+ additional benchmarks
- ✓Language-specific results
- ✓Implementation guidelines
Frequently Asked Questions
Everything you need to know about zero-instrumentation monitoring and HyperObserve
Still have questions? We're here to help!
Contact SupportExperience eBPF Performance Yourself
See the difference in your own environment with a free trial